compare_operators

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description's value is in explaining fetch and verdict behavior. Adds that it retrieves profiles from board and returns a verdict in power-user language, but omits details like rate limits or side effects, which are acceptable given read-only nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and examples, no wasted words. Could be slightly more concise by merging the 'Intent' line into the first sentence, but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given output schema exists, description doesn't need to detail return format. Covers scope, inputs, and verdict generation. Lacks mention of edge cases like invalid codenames, but that's covered by schema required fields. Adequate for a comparison tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and includes case-insensitivity in parameter descriptions. The description reiterates case-insensitivity and existence requirement, adding minimal new meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool compares two operators side-by-side with a behavioral verdict, listing specific attributes (yield, leverage, velocity, class, rank) and noting it distinguishes from siblings like 'compare_self' which likely compares to past versions of the same operator.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit usage examples ('compare operator X vs Y', 'who is more efficient') and states intent (COMPARE_OPERATORS), guiding when to invoke. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but context and sibling list fill some gaps.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.